Huge victory for the 2nd Amendment

[1bad65]

This is a huge victory not only for the 2nd amendment, but for Americans who just want the right to defend themselves.


Sources:
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/28/high-courts-big-ruling-for-gun-rights/
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/28/us.scotus.handgun.ban/index.html?hpt=T1

Source with graphs showing gun statistics:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/28/john-lott-supreme-court-guns-ban-washington-chicago-daley-kagan-sotomayor/

[Drake]

I don't think handguns should be banned, but I do think there should be a registration process along with a waiting period.

And FYI... you can own heavy weaponry (flamethrowers, machine guns).. you just need to have a class 3 license. There's a guy outside of town who owns a virtual armory... dragonovs, ak-47s, .50 cal machine guns, etc etc etc... He even has a special training area for our SF unit on Ft. Carson.

[solo1]

Like how this call overturns the law in chicago. Obama must be apoplectic. The tactic to disarm the public is foiled again. Throws cape around his face and skulks into the mist........

[Hardwork108]

Like how this call overturns the law in chicago. Obama must be apoplectic.
Obama must be apologizing to his handlers, just about now.....


The tactic to disarm the public is foiled again.
They will try and again as no unjust system wants an armed public who may one day come out revolting against a corrupt system that is robbing them of their wealth and human freedoms.


Throws cape around his face and skulks into the mist........

Throws cape around his face and follows solo1 into the mist....

[Drake]

President Obama appointed Sotomayer, who voted against the ban. In fact, the last several presidents, GOP and Democrat, were responsible for her promotions and advancements. Guess your puppetry concept just got shot to hell. AGAIN. HW..showing his dumbnosity again...

[Hardwork108]

President Obama appointed Sotomayer, who voted against the ban. In fact, the last several presidents, GOP and Democrat, were responsible for her promotions and advancements. Guess your puppetry concept just got shot to hell. AGAIN. HW..showing his dumbnosity again...

It seems that you are more than a little naive about political theatrics and role play.....

[SanHeChuan]

Got to love that logic.

[1bad65]

President Obama appointed Sotomayer, who voted against the ban.

You may want to double-check your facts.

[SanHeChuan]

It's the same ruling they made for D.C.

You can restrict, not ban.

[Drake]

You may want to double-check your facts.

If you are referring to the fact that the technical word is nomination, then fine. She was NOMINATED by President Obama, and then CONFIRMED by the Senate. fact is, she voted against the ban... and she wouldn't be where she is if not for President Obama.

You sound like Fmr Pres Clinton on trial sometimes, 1Bad...

[dimethylsea]

The simple fact of the matter is Obama has much larger fish to fry than to expend much political capital on gun control.. even if he was passionate about it.. which he isn't.


He gives the usual lip service to keep the Left on-team, but he's really not about gun control.


He has/had a healthcare crisis, two wars, and environmental disaster of historical proportions, a looming energy crisis... oh yeah.. and the recession Bush left him with.

You think he gives a crap whether people get to carry firearms? Not enough to waste any effort fighting it.

[1bad65]

fact is, she voted against the ban...

That's the part you are mistaken on. She voted with the minority who wanted to uphold the Chicago ban at issue on this case.

[1bad65]

You think he gives a crap whether people get to carry firearms? Not enough to waste any effort fighting it.

Of course he cares. All the unconstitutional gun bans come from Democrats. NYC, Washington DC, Chicago, etc. All those bans were signed into law by Democrats.

Can you name one Republican who signed into law any gun bans recently?

[Drake]

Really? If I'm mistaken, I apologize.

[1bad65]

No need to apologize.

"A 5-4 conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its 2-year-old conclusion that the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer predicated far-reaching implications. "Incorporating the right," he wrote, "may change the law in many of the 50 states. Read in the majority's favor, the historical evidence" for the decision "is at most ambiguous."

He was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor."

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/28/us.scotus.handgun.ban/index.html

In short, the conservative Justices voted with the US Consititution, while the liberal Justices voted against the US Constitution.

[Drake]

108 pages into my masters thesis... not as involved here research-wise as I was...

[1bad65]

108 pages into my masters thesis...

Best of luck to you on that.

[dimethylsea]

Of course he cares. All the unconstitutional gun bans come from Democrats. NYC, Washington DC, Chicago, etc. All those bans were signed into law by Democrats.

Can you name one Republican who signed into law any gun bans recently?

And you don't understand how politics work. If you want to get to the top of a political party you have be acceptable to the party.

But that doesn't mean you will expend valuable political capital pushing hard on each plank in the platform.

Fundamentally Obama is a pragmatist and a left-center type. He has and likely will rely on feedback from both side of the aisle in determining what is "pragmatically possible" in terms of working for.

It is MUCH easier to be a Democrat who gives only lip service to firearm safety issue (and doesn't directly take on the NRA) than it is to be.. oh say a Republican who is in favor of abortion rights, gay marriage and sexual orientation equality.

If Obama sees the money and votes lining up to oppose gun control.. he's going to "take a powder" on that issue and focus on "the more important and more importantly the DOABLE". Where is the political payoff for Obama pushing hard on gun control? It's NOT THERE. So he will focus on the important and the doable. He's a pragmatic skilled politician.

I'm thrilled about this decision by the Supremes (not so the Citizens United decision though).

[1bad65]

And you don't understand how politics work. If you want to get to the top of a political party you have be acceptable to the party.

I understand perfectly. Like I said, all the gun bans I know of were signed into law by Democrats. And I'm right on that.

Your second sentence is true, however.


Fundamentally Obama is a cult of personality and a socialist.

Fixed that for ya. ;)

How you can say he is pragmatic is beyond me. While his 'stimulus' has been an epic failure, he still refuses to deviate from the proven failure that is Keynesian economics and try other proven solutions to the problems we are facing.


I'm thrilled about this decision by the Supremes...

We agree. However, I'm curious as to whether you are concerned that the 4 liberal Justices voted for the Chicago ban, and against the US Constitution.

[1bad65]

Where is the political payoff for Obama pushing hard on gun control? It's NOT THERE.

Look harder. Remember, big government types (like socialists) prefer unarmed citizens...

[18elders]

It's not like the guy will be president for 20 years and is afraid of people having guns.
Time changes things and things evolve or die. Laws change so why can't the constitution change?
Do you think the founding fathers had a crystal ball and could see into the countries future?
I'm sure if they could they would have banned guns.
What are the statistics of people being the victim of a crime with a gun compared to people protecting themselves with a gun?

any asswipe can pull a trigger

[Yao Sing]

The Constitution CAN change, all you need is a Constitutional Convention. They changed it for Prohibition and the repeal. Then they found it was easier to just quit playing by the rules.

[1bad65]

It's not like the guy will be president for 20 years and is afraid of people having guns.
Time changes things and things evolve or die. Laws change so why can't the constitution change?
Do you think the founding fathers had a crystal ball and could see into the countries future?
I'm sure if they could they would have banned guns.

Are you insane!?!?!

They even said the 2nd amendment is the one that gives THE PEOPLE the power to keep the other Rights if the Government went to take them away.

The first thing the Bitish did when the Founders stood up against them was move to confiscate their guns and powder (Lexington and Concord). So the Founders made sure the people could never be disarmed by a government again. What part of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon" do you not understand?

As to crime, it's been repeatedly shown that crime goes up when strict gun laws are put into place, and it goes down again after those laws are ruled unconsitutional.

If strict gun laws and gun bans worked, places like Detroit, NYC, and Washington DC would have the lowest crime rates in the country. Yet they are always towards the top of the lists in violent crime rates, and Detroit is almost always the most dangerous city in the US. Remember, criminals prefer unarmed victims.


What are the statistics of people being the victim of a crime with a gun compared to people protecting themselves with a gun?

Ask Bernard Goetz. :D

Actually the source I cited had graphs showing the rate of violent crimes, and gun laws effects on them. And they used legit statistics.

[18elders]

no i am not insane.
But when your cousin is murdered in cold blood because of some jealous guy, maybe you will change your mind on gun control.

He took his girlfriend out to eat , brought her home and when he got out to the car the guy shot and killed him.
The guy kidnapped the girl, raped her and then had a 9 hour standoff with police until he blew his brains out.

1 gun, 3 peoples families and lives ruined, 2 dead

you think i am insane??

DC, Chicago, give me a break , of course they have bad crime.
Criminals prefer unarmed people, what if they themselves didn't have guns?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

USA is number one in crime rate per county and we allow guns, coincidence?
Second place isn't even close to us.


You really think the government is going to come knocking on your door to seize your assets and you will have to defend yourself from them?

[Dragonzbane76]

But when your cousin is murdered in cold blood because of some jealous guy, maybe you will change your mind on gun control.

He took his girlfriend out to eat , brought her home and when he got out to the car the guy shot and killed him.
The guy kidnapped the girl, raped her and then had a 9 hour standoff with police until he blew his brains out.

1 gun, 3 peoples families and lives ruined, 2 dead

you think i am insane??

sorry for your loss, but do you really think that is the fault of guns and the laws???

That guy sounded to be on a war path and nothing would have stood in his way. In some circumstances there is nothing anyone can do, if someone wants to commit the crime they will. If guns were completely outlawed then he would have found someway to kill said persons above either with a machette/sword or some other form. The gun was the easiest answer in this case.

[Dragonzbane76]

You really think the government is going to come knocking on your door to seize your assets and you will have to defend yourself from them?

haha i'm not that liberal but some tinfoil wearing fools on here are. I have friends that have arsenals in there basements... the only thing that keeps them from being classified as a compound is that they haven't pi$$ed the government off yet. :)

[Reality_Check]

I understand perfectly. Like I said, all the gun bans I know of were signed into law by Democrats. And I'm right on that.

Michael Bloomberg was elected NYC Mayor as a Republican, and is currently an Independent.

[1bad65]

no i am not insane.
But when your cousin is murdered in cold blood because of some jealous guy, maybe you will change your mind on gun control.

I also had a cousin murdered. Him and 2 friends were put face down and executed with a shot to the back of the head. The 4 who did it are all in prison now, none received the Death Penalty. I'll never change my mind on gun control. I myself have a few firearms in my house, and I sometimes carry a handgun in my car as well. In Texas, that is legal.


DC, Chicago, give me a break , of course they have bad crime.
Criminals prefer unarmed people, what if they themselves didn't have guns?

Well the criminals are obviously getting guns in Chicago and DC. How do you think all the murders committed with guns are happening?

Last I checked, drugs were illegal. But Americans obviously don't have problems getting our hands on those.


USA is number one in crime rate per county and we allow guns, coincidence?
Second place isn't even close to us.

They are different cultures. Compare apples to apples, American city vs American city. That's how you get the real story. And those statistics will prove me (and the 2nd Amendment) right every time.


You really think the government is going to come knocking on your door to seize your assets and you will have to defend yourself from them?

They well might. If I don't pay my taxes they will. But the Founders gave me the right to bear arms, pure and simple. And I'll die before I give up my guns.

"It's better to die upon your feet than to live upon your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata

[1bad65]

sorry for your loss, but do you really think that is the fault of guns and the laws???

Exactly. And had he had a firearm himself he could have had a fighting chance. It may sound cold (and if so, I am sorry), but it is true. Again, criminals prefer unarmed victims.

[18elders]

sorry for you loss, i hope your gun loves you as much as you love it.
Get a double barrel shot gun, more to love.

[1bad65]

Michael Bloomberg was elected NYC Mayor as a Republican, and is currently an Independent.

You got me. See, I admit it. ;)

I should have said "Liberal". Bloomberg is a liberal, imo he just put an (R) next to his name so he could ride Guiliani's coattails.

[1bad65]

sorry for you loss, i hope your gun loves you as much as you love it.
Get a double barrel shot gun, more to love.

I don't love it, I have it for protection. Also, I don't exactly live in the city, and I have outdoor cats. And coyotes are an issue. If I see one of those, I'll shoot it too, just like Rick Perry did. ;)

My wife is scared of shotguns, so I do not have one of those.

I'm sorry for your loss as well.

[dimethylsea]

How you can say he is pragmatic is beyond me. While his 'stimulus' has been an epic failure, he still refuses to deviate from the proven failure that is Keynesian economics and try other proven solutions to the problems we are facing.

Pragmatics is going for what you *think* is possible. You and Obama merely disagree with what is possible/likely. That is a function of civil discourse and public debate.
And arguing Keynesian economics is a "proven failure" is reaching ALOT.
Datapoints..
1.) There has NEVER been a truly Misean economic system practiced by a large industrial country. Feel free to refute this if you can but it's just the truth.
2.) During the period where the main economic thought in the US was Keynesian the economy and American world power has expanded dramatically.
3.) Consequently since one can argue a positive example for Keynesian economics with no countervailing existing positive example for Misean thought...
You can't argue Keynesian economics is a "proven failure" in that sense.
Goverment interventions (whether the tyranny of kings or the interference of legislatures and/or the central bank) have ALWAYS been with us.




We agree. However, I'm curious as to whether you are concerned that the 4 liberal Justices voted for the Chicago ban, and against the US Constitution.

I'm way more worried about Citizens United and the giving of Constitutional freedoms to artificial "creations of law" like the limited liability corporations.

Simply put.. it's easier to hide or resist gun control attempts at the grass roots level (especially when I and so many other Americans own and use firearms) than it is to resist the insidious and defuse effect of corrupt corporations on the social contract and political discourse of the Republic.

[1bad65]

Pragmatics is going for what you *think* is possible. You and Obama merely disagree with what is possible/likely. That is a function of civil discourse and public debate.
And arguing Keynesian economics is a "proven failure" is reaching ALOT.
Datapoints..
1.) There has NEVER been a truly Misean economic system practiced by a large industrial country. Feel free to refute this if you can but it's just the truth.
2.) During the period where the main economic thought in the US was Keynesian the economy and American world power has expanded dramatically.
3.) Consequently since one can argue a positive example for Keynesian economics with no countervailing existing positive example for Misean thought...
You can't argue Keynesian economics is a "proven failure" in that sense.
Goverment interventions (whether the tyranny of kings or the interference of legislatures and/or the central bank) have ALWAYS been with us.

Oh geez, not the old "well it hasn't worked yet because the right people haven't been in charge" argument. :rolleyes:

Well, Obama was supposed to be the one who had all the answers. If he's not the "right guy", who is? And we can see his failure everyday. You have seen the horrible economic news that's come out the past week or so, right?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/01/zakaria.obama.business.fear/index.html?hpt=T2


I'm way more worried about Citizens United and the giving of Constitutional freedoms to artificial "creations of law" like the limited liability corporations.

Why so? You do realize a corporation is just a legal entity created by "The People", right? And as such they deserve the same Constitutional freedoms as The People. And courts have repeatedly agreed with me on this issue.

[18elders]

why do you shoot the coyote? To protect your cats?
Keep them indoors, save your cat and the coyote.
Senseless concern for life, same as the guy robbing you with a gun.
I would rather have more coyotes on the earth and less *******s.


Was Bush's stimulus a success either?

Instead of giving billions to the banks and AIG, each legal US family should have received $30K in 2 types of vouchers, one for credit card payments and one towards mortgage. People could have paid off debt, reduced their mortgage and then would have had more money in their pockets to purchase things and stimulate the economy.
The money paid to CC or mortgage companies would have gone back to the banking industry so they would have gotten all the money just the same as if the government just gave it to them but this way it would have helped the PEOPLE.

That would be my stimulus proposal.

[dimethylsea]

Oh geez, not the old "well it hasn't worked yet because the right people haven't been in charge" argument. :rolleyes:

Well, Obama was supposed to be the one who had all the answers. If he's not the "right guy", who is? And we can see his failure everyday. You have seen the horrible economic news that's come out the past week or so, right?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/01/zakaria.obama.business.fear/index.html?hpt=T2


No you are not understanding what I am saying (probably because you lack the education in economics and history).
Austrian economics (i.e. the libertarian solution) have NOT been practiced by ANY of the parties in power. Not the Americans, not Europe, not Democrats nor Republicans.
I am as sympathetic as anyone to anti-Keynesian positions.. but you cannot say that an "untried" program (i.e. the Austrian one) is "proven". It isn't. It is "yet to be tested".
I'm of the opinion it should be tested.. but that won't happen under ANY likely regime (Demos or the GOP). One wants to boost aggregate demand via welfare, one via warfare.
Remember the phrase "We are all Keynesians now!" ?
I hate Bush because he was an enemy of peace, not because he was some paragon of Austrian economic theory. He was a "big spender".. he just put it on the national credit card instead of "raising the price of government to the taxpayers directly" (i.e. increasing taxes).




Why so? You do realize a corporation is just a legal entity created by "The People", right? And as such they deserve the same Constitutional freedoms as The People. And courts have repeatedly agreed with me on this issue.

No a corporation is a legal entity created by an act of the legislature. It has no natural lifespan and can be perpetual. It cannot be held in prison etc.

Corporations were only notional entities created by legislatures for enterprises seen to assist in the common good... at least originally.

The courts may agree with you, but does that make it desirable? No. No more than pro-lifers should sit down and shut up because of Roe vs. Wade.

[1bad65]

why do you shoot the coyote? To protect your cats?
Keep them indoors, save your cat and the coyote.

The cats choose to be free, so I don't intrude on their freedom. That's how I live life. I do what I can to protect them, but I won't force them to live life in way they do not want to live life.


Was Bush's stimulus a success either?

Bush never had a stimulus. He bailed out AIG, I believe.


Instead of giving billions to the banks and AIG, each legal US family should have received $30K in 2 types of vouchers, one for credit card payments and one towards mortgage. People could have paid off debt, reduced their mortgage and then would have had more money in their pockets to purchase things and stimulate the economy.

Are you crazy?

And fyi, we didn't literally GIVE them the money. It's SUPPOSED to be paid back. At this time, it looks like GM might pull it off, as well as some of the financial institutions who were bailed out (I'm not up to date on the financial institutions as I should be). It looks like the bailout money for Chrysler will be thrown down the toilet, however.


The money paid to CC or mortgage companies would have gone back to the banking industry so they would have gotten all the money just the same as if the government just gave it to them but this way it would have helped the PEOPLE.

That would be my stimulus proposal.

So you know, I was against ANY bailouts or 'stimulus'. And by stimulus, I mean it in the sense of Gov't spending in order to attempt to jumpstart the economy. It failed during the Great Depression, and it failed this time. However, FDR at least lowered unemployment with his spending, Obama actually raised unemployment with his. :eek:

I say let the bussinesses who made bad decisions fail. The ones who didn't screw up will take their places by growing by using the sound business practices they already had in place. As for stimulus, tax cuts have worked everytime they are tried. Emulate success, not failure. It's common sense.

[1bad65]

No you are not understanding what I am saying (probably because you lack the education in economics and history).

Yeah, us History majors are clueless about history. :rolleyes:

Speaking of history, can you show me some instances where massive Gov't entitlement and social spending has pulled a country out of a recession/depression? We know tax cuts have, so can you show where the liberal way has worked?


I hate Bush because he was an enemy of peace, not because he was some paragon of Austrian economic theory. He was a "big spender".. he just put it on the national credit card instead of "raising the price of government to the taxpayers directly" (i.e. increasing taxes).

Yeah, we know you hate Bush based on the body count. So in your book he must rank up there with other horrible Presidents with huge body counts like FDR, Lincoln, and Wilson.

Are you saying tax increases are the answer right now?


No a corporation is a legal entity created by an act of the legislature. It has no natural lifespan and can be perpetual. It cannot be held in prison etc.

US courts (including the Supreme Court) have repeatedly said they have the same rights as The People. Like it or not, it is what it is.

Actually the stockholders, CEO, and Officers of the corp can be put in prison (after a trial by their peers, of course), so it looks like the courts are consistant here.

Of course it has to pay taxes (on top of the income taxes and other taxes the stockholders who make up the corp pay), it can be sued, etc.


The courts may agree with you, but does that make it desirable? No. No more than pro-lifers should sit down and shut up because of Roe vs. Wade.

Agreed.

However, I do agree with the rights given corporations by the courts.

[mawali]

I'm curious as to whether you are concerned that the 4 liberal Justices voted for the Chicago ban, and against the US Constitution. but this is a perfect setup of the dynamics of federal vs states and their respective responsiblities. Sadly I think the 2nd Amendment is flawed because based on the timeframe of its creation, right to bear arms in the same sentence as 'milital' related to that era.

No doubt citizens SHOULD have the right to protect themselves but does this mean in many cases the stockpiling of AK-47s, RPGs and other weaponry are accepted under that amendment. I realize that being in a free society, you can buy what you want but my own limited assessment is that when I compare gun/ammunition sales to sales of other commodities in the market, there is definately NO RECESSION in that area so Obama has exceeded the marketplace expectations in the spurring of gun sales in the local communities. So how can Obama be bad for America when you can buy as many guns as you can afford under the law?

[1bad65]

but this is a perfect setup of the dynamics of federal vs states and their respective responsiblities. Sadly I think the 2nd Amendment is flawed because based on the timeframe of its creation, right to bear arms in the same sentence as 'milital' related to that era.

Agreed. At their time, "militia" was simply a gathering of The People who were armed to defend themselves, their homes, their State, and their Country.


No doubt citizens SHOULD have the right to protect themselves but does this mean in many cases the stockpiling of AK-47s, RPGs and other weaponry are accepted under that amendment. I realize that being in a free society, you can buy what you want but my own limited assessment is that when I compare gun/ammunition sales to sales of other commodities in the market, there is definately NO RECESSION in that area so Obama has exceeded the marketplace expectations in the spurring of gun sales in the local communities. So how can Obama be bad for America when you can buy as many guns as you can afford under the law?

I feel The People should have every right to automatic weapons. RPG, anti-air missiles, etc are a different, complicated issue.

See, in the Founders day the average American was better armed than the armies of that time in terms of small arms. The Pennsylvania long rifle for example was far superior to rifles of that era carried by the British, yet the Founders did not ban that superior weaponry. They actually encouraged it by saying an armed populace was a check against an overbearing Government.

Gun sales are up because many fear Obama is anti-gun and because firearm sales typically go up in recessions/depressions as people fear crime more during those times. I've only recently began carrying a pistol in my car, and it's because I do worry more about crime than I did just a few years ago.

[18elders]

guns sales are up because of idiots like limbaugh and beck brainwashing people to go buy them before the govt. takes it away.
Just like they told people to go stock up on rice because there will be a shortage of food in the usa.

http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2010/07/tampa-hunts-for-suspected-copkiller.html

WESTFIELD, Mass. — An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision at a gun fair.

[dimethylsea]

Yeah, us History majors are clueless about history. :rolleyes:

Speaking of history, can you show me some instances where massive Gov't entitlement and social spending has pulled a country out of a recession/depression? We know tax cuts have, so can you show where the liberal way has worked?


Point blank question, please answer it.. please point to a historical example of a modern industrialized country which applied a strict Austrian perspective to their monetary and regulatory policy.

When I said "you may lack the education in history and economics" I am referring specifically to Austrian school econ and fiscal history. I've asked you several times and you keep dodging the question.

Where is the "counter-example" to what you call the "liberal way" (i.e. a Keynesian economic view where government steers/regulates/bullies the markets)?

Even the GOP and the conservatives in Europe are aghast at implementing the policy recommendations of von Mises, Rothbard and Hayek (i.e. the real libertarians).

Hard money and no fiat currency? A total end to all farm subsidies? No mandatory professional licensure of any kind? Austerity government?
No significant standing military (you can't really afford it if you want anything else without fiat currency and inflationary structures).

NOBODY has implemented the total program, or really even come close. Thatcher didn't. Reagan didn't. Bush and Nixon certainly didn't.

There is far less real substantive difference between the liberals you hate and the "conservatives" I hate.

And in answer to your question.. most economists would say FDR fixed the Great Depression by the entitlements and welfare. My personal view is that the problematic responses at that time went WAY deeper that FDR spending a bunch of money.

[1bad65]

guns sales are up because of idiots like limbaugh and beck brainwashing people to go buy them before the govt. takes it away.
Just like they told people to go stock up on rice because there will be a shortage of food in the usa.

You go ahead and say that. It's true to a degree, but you cannot discount the bad economy.


http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2010/07/tampa-hunts-for-suspected-copkiller.html

This example proves MY poit. See, the guy who shot the two officers was a convicted felon. That means it was illegal for him to possess a firearm. YET HE DID. So the existing gun laws were ok, the criminal just chose to break those laws. How would more laws have stopped the guy from carrying that gun? You know they would not have. But more gun laws will create more unarmed victims for human garbage like this guy. Am I making sense?


WESTFIELD, Mass. — An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision at a gun fair.

And Bernie Goetz shot 4 guys attempting to mug him. It cuts both ways, but I want the right to defend myself.

Of course we have accidents, but that one is the parent's fault, not the gun's. I have guns, and I keep them in a room where my friends children who come over are not allowed in. I do not have kids of my own.

[1bad65]

Point blank question, please answer it.. please point to a historical example of a modern industrialized country which applied a strict Austrian perspective to their monetary and regulatory policy.

I cannot at this time, as I do not fuly understand that policy.


Where is the "counter-example" to what you call the "liberal way" (i.e. a Keynesian economic view where government steers/regulates/bullies the markets)?

Reaganomics.

When Reagan took office we had double-digit inflation, record high interest rates, and high unemployment. Aside from 1982, he had a roaring economy. And 1982 had high unemployment because Reagan had to raise interest rates (still well below Carter's record levels) to combat inflation. Once inflation susided Reagan was able to cut interest rates and by 1983 the lost jobs had returned.

Reagan also predicted the USSR would bankrupt themselves, and he was right on that one too.


There is far less real substantive difference between the liberals you hate and the "conservatives" I hate.

To a degree. I consider myself a "Consitutionalist". In terms of political Parties, I identify closest with the Libertarian Party, but I admit even they are not perfect (unlike the Obama zombies who can see no wrong in his policies).


And in answer to your question.. most economists would say FDR fixed the Great Depression by the entitlements and welfare. My personal view is that the problematic responses at that time went WAY deeper that FDR spending a bunch of money.

Actually most agree WWII ended the Depression. When FDR cut Gov't spending in 1937, unemployment rose to levels HIGHER than it was pre-New Deal. It only fell to pre-Depression levels after we entered WWII.

http://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/statistics.html

[Lucas]

I'm going to go buy a gun.

[Dragonzbane76]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18elders
http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_sc...copkiller.html

This example proves MY poit. See, the guy who shot the two officers was a convicted felon. That means it was illegal for him to possess a firearm. YET HE DID. So the existing gun laws were ok, the criminal just chose to break those laws. How would more laws have stopped the guy from carrying that gun? You know they would not have. But more gun laws will create more unarmed victims for human garbage like this guy. Am I making sense?


Quote:
Originally Posted by 18elders
WESTFIELD, Mass. — An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision at a gun fair.

And Bernie Goetz shot 4 guys attempting to mug him. It cuts both ways, but I want the right to defend myself.

Of course we have accidents, but that one is the parent's fault, not the gun's. I have guns, and I keep them in a room where my friends children who come over are not allowed in. I do not have kids of my own.

have to agree with you on this. It's a 2 way street, what's that saying, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them."

The guy that let his 8 year old fire an uzi was just a bad parent. You can't blame the guns for every idiots behavior out there. Banning guns won''t solve anything, there are studies that show if you ban guns , crime goes up.

I really don't need to comment on the first one, like 1bad said the guy was a convicted felon, he wasn't suppose to have a gun anyways.

[Drake]

I'm for gun CONTROL. Not gun BANNING.

[dimethylsea]

I cannot at this time, as I do not fuly understand that policy.

Wow. Ok... I give you points for a "I don't know". I think that is the first time I've noticed you say something like this.
If this is a topic you wish to educate yourself on point your browser to www.mises.org and start reading.




Reaganomics.

When Reagan took office we had double-digit inflation, record high interest rates, and high unemployment. Aside from 1982, he had a roaring economy. And 1982 had high unemployment because Reagan had to raise interest rates (still well below Carter's record levels) to combat inflation. Once inflation susided Reagan was able to cut interest rates and by 1983 the lost jobs had returned.

Reagan also predicted the USSR would bankrupt themselves, and he was right on that one too.

Actually not quite. Reagan ran on one sort of program, but did something quite different.
I will firmly agree with your last point (i.e. the USSR bankrupting itself) as a lack of market signals in a fully command economy yield profound problems with determining price levels for goods and services (which in turn cause low productivity etc.). I'm going to spin a thread on this visavis Obamacare. Should be fun :D

Back to Reagan..

Point 1: The Gold Standard.. Reagan ran on returning to the gold standard, but once elected appointed a commission to study the matter, conveniently composed of gold-opponents. The committee (as expected) recommended staying with fiat currency. Sound hard money is a fundamental point of the Austrian school.

Point 2: Government Spending - In 1980, the last year Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986 the Reagan administration & the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Even allowing for inflation adjustment and percentage of GDP (i.e. comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges so to speak) federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 was ~21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, ~24.3%.

Thus it is possible to argue Reagan SLOWED THE GROWTH of federal government spending.. but he most emphatically did not slash or reduce it.
Moreover Reagan's requested budgets and what the Congress passed were remarkably similar. Reagan (despite GOP mythmaking to the contrary) *NEVER* requested a overall federal budget *decrease*.

Point 3: Deficits - Here again the facts are going to be a bit sour given your perception that "Reagan basically did it right". Reagan financed his war and defense spending largely with deficit spending (as do all governments with a fiat currency and vested interests having a seat at the table).
Carter routinely ran budget deficits in the 40-50 billion USD$ range, tending to the mid 70 billion mark by the end of his term.
Care to guestimate Reagan's budget deficit in 1984?
500 BILLION USD$.
That is a level which it pretty much remained during his tenure. Certainly there was no "massive decrease in federal government spending" under Reagan.

So if Carter's economy was crap, and Reagan's was all great once he worked his Presidential mojo on it.. but Reagan's deficits ran 5 to 10 TIMES Carter's what does that say about your pronouncements about deficit spending and the economy?

Keep in mind.. I'm not saying deficits are great or even ok. I think they are part of the inflationary fiat currency disease our society and it's government is addicted to. I am not saying Obama's deficits are good, or will work.

I'm just saying that Reagan WAS NO LIBERTARIAN. He was a statist, and a fan of government (though he liked warfare spending instead of welfare spending.. like many a GOPer).

The upshot of all of the above and the take home is simple.. Reagan is not an example of Austrian, libertarian philosophy. He is not a demonstration of these policies and perspectives being practiced in a modern industrial society.

Anyone who has read alot of Murray Rothbard should agree totally with me on this.

[dimethylsea]

I'm for gun CONTROL. Not gun BANNING.

Gun control is good. That's why we should always point downrange :D

[Drake]

Gun control is good. That's why we should always point downrange :D

That's why ARM and room clearing with LTs is EFFIN SCARY. Muzzle awareness. LEARN IT.

[Dragonzbane76]

That's why ARM and room clearing with LTs is EFFIN SCARY. Muzzle awareness. LEARN IT.

being taught the "right way" is a dying tradition though. Parenting is a dying tradition if you also if you ask me also.

[1bad65]

Good reading, but I want to discuss this part.


So if Carter's economy was crap, and Reagan's was all great once he worked his Presidential mojo on it.. but Reagan's deficits ran 5 to 10 TIMES Carter's what does that say about your pronouncements about deficit spending and the economy?

Keep in mind.. I'm not saying deficits are great or even ok. I think they are part of the inflationary fiat currency disease our society and it's government is addicted to. I am not saying Obama's deficits are good, or will work.

Reagan's spending was totally justified in my eyes for one very simple reason; he achieved his goals with it.

He set out to win the Cold War, and he was open and honest about that. And he was successful.

Carter failed with his spending. He had high unemployment, high interest rates, and massive inflation. Reagan had none of those problems (except 1982, but I've explained that before).

Obama is currently failing with his. Again, I say currently. He has just over 2 years left before I/we can judge him fully. Of course we can judge him to this point however. Unemployment is up. Interest rates are at record lows, yet GDP is stagnant. This is not good. Government is growing, and remember, Government costs only increase when the Gov't is growing. Couple the Gov't growth with the private sector stagnation and the debt/income ratio is moving in the wrong direction.

FYI, while Reagan spent money on Gov't, it was not growing the Gov't or entitlements, it was mainly defense spending.